Subject:
|
Legalities of reverse-engineering (was: Re: Thoughts on NQC for Scout)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.scout
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Nov 1999 06:23:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
28 times
|
| |
|
|
[Disclaimer: IANAL!]
In lugnet.robotics, Robert Munafo <munafo@gcctechNO.SPAMcom> writes:
> That is definitely true, at least right now. Everyone who downloaded the
> Scout SDK agreed not to "reverse-engineer" it, and that includes figuring
> out the download protocol or bytecode format.
Hmm, I'm not so sure. Did everyone actually *really* agree not to reverse-
engineer it? Look closer at the license agreement[1]...it says that you may
not:
(ii) modify, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble
(except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
by law) or create derivative works based upon the Software;
^^^^^^^
In other words, whether or not someone actually agreed not to reverse-
engineer the SDK is dependent on local/national laws (and presumably, in the
case of U.S. downloads, that means the State of Connecticut if provision VI
of the Agreement applies here.) Thus, it's not necessarily true that
*everyone* who downloaded it actually agreed not to reverse-engineer it.
Moreover, even if someone did agree not to do it, it doesn't necessarily
mean that they can't legally still go ahead and do it; it may very well be
that (ii) above is completely non-enforceable.
> As I see it, the only way the download protocol or bytecode format are
> going to become legally available is if someone figures it out on their own,
> without having interacted with any of us. You can't just recruit someone to
> do the work for you, because asking someone to do it makes you partly
> responsible for what they have done, and you would still be considered
> guilty of reverse-engineering.
But thanks to Sega v. Accolade and Atari v. Nintendo and other landmark
cases earlier in the decade, there's probably nothing to be guilty of,
in this case.
The following may shed some light on all of this...
http://www.lgu.com/cr46.htm
http://www.law.cornell.edu/commentary/intelpro/chn95int.htm
As far as I can tell (and again, I am not a lawyer and this is just my
unqualified opinion), there's nothing whatsoever legally that LEGO can do
to prevent people in the U.S. and the European Union from reverse-
engineering any programmable brick software they release.
The clause about agreeing not to reverse-engineer the SDK is, I think,
simply a bit of standard legal FUD to scare people off. Can't blame 'em,
I guess...
--Todd
[1] http://www.legomindstorms.com/scout_sdk/SDK.asp
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Thoughts on NQC for Scout
|
| (...) That is definitely true, at least right now. Everyone who downloaded the Scout SDK agreed not to "reverse-engineer" it, and that includes figuring out the download protocol or bytecode format. As I see it, the only way the download protocol or (...) (25 years ago, 25-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
